Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Hi Dan-
Ultimately your post covers both sides pretty well. I just meant: Takeda didn't exactly spend time in a library studying the "classics," right? His life just wasn't like that. He grew up in pretty messed-up circumstances.
Whereas, Ueshiba really did grow up comfortable and reading this type of stuff.

Presumptions abound don't they?
Ueshiba spent what years studying what classics that infused his body method?
When?
When he was traveling all over the place as he was want to do?
He fell apart and cowered in tears when he met Takeda.
He fell apart against the Military guys six years later after having trained many times with Takeda.
It wasn't till after a day to day intensive study at Ayabe that he was known for power. So, was it curiously that during that time he got it from reading the classics and not from Takeda? And were that true where are the others who got it from the classics?....crickets again.
ere is another cricket response to a question.
Takeda trained under some scolars as well. But never the less we hear the argument that the knowledge of the classics was all over Japan...so that knowledge skipped Takeda after immersion in the Tradional arts just how?
He demonstrated a deep physical understanding for years prior to Training Ueshiba
Yet with that we know for sure that he didn't get the relation of his own skills to the classics just why?
Ueshiba stated that "Takeda opened my eyes to true budo" (That did not include the knowledge of understanding the classics why?
Crickets......

Takeda successfully taught royalty and many upper cless Japanese, as well as many Koryu teachers, as well as Admirals and generals in the military and dozens of police departments, yet was somehow unrefined and ignorant? If you know anything about Japanese history, that is highly unlikely.
I am not taking away from Ueshiba either. I am sure Ueshiba grew on his own and explored other methods, later. Curiously though, we do not see, certain significant changes I would be looking for were he heavily influenced by Chinese methods.

Quote:

Anyway I think the best evidence we have for the way info was organized in Takeda's mind (and what info was there, period) is as you say-- we have to look at the info in the extant branches and look at what is conserved across that diversity. It's still speculation, and the biggest problem is indeed:
how to separate what was not known from what was kept secret. Ultimately that could only be guessed at from body movement and usage.

You will have a very tough time with that. Even as late as this year some interesting information came to light tying things together. It all depends on who you know and what you can demonstrate that opens certain doors. Certain parts of both arguments are spot on, though there are twists to the points that are not expressed here. Not that any of it matters much.
Information is a good thing, actual skill and information better, having both and being able to teach, better yet. No matter what though, it is the work that matters.
In the fullness of time the hard work and who may be up to it or not remains to be seen.
Cheers
Dan

I don't think I've heard any good arguments against a point Ellis made in HIPS that "aiki" is a relatively new name for a concept that was fairly well understood inside many koryu systems that contained jujutsu / yawara in their syllabi.

Takeda was a guy who was good at it. He had a number of other skills as well. Whether he created from whole cloth or revitalized Daito Ryu, in my opinion, he was not creating an art for the purpose of studying aiki. Aiki was a high-level, inner teaching. He saved the good stuff for a small group of individuals, right? So it wasn't as if he was trying to get the world to study it.

Ueshiba, I think, did make an effort to distill the study of aiki for its own sake. Living though massive epochal change and connecting with really far-out seeker types, I think, convinced him that this stuff he could do that was special could bring about something desirable if disseminated. At least after the war was lost.

So while it is true that Takeda was Ueshiba's teacher, I really don't think he would be happy to see the way of aiki become a martial art trained all over the world.

I think enough evidence exists to say it was never a consistent collected work of fixed waza in the first place. There was also some insider gossip about the creation of the scrolls that speak to the reasons behind a...uhm...rather fluid curriculum.

I put no stock in the notion of DR either being a fixed art or an old one, prior to Takeda. I suspect it was always him expressing a body method, and certain people recording how the various people responded (in different areas) to what happened when people attacked him. Hence, never repeating a waza.
Cheers
Dan

The amount of discussion on Aikiweb suggests it has exploded, but is this topic also spreading beyond Aikiweb? How many of the (let's say) one million aikidoka have heard of this?

Good point Dave.
I can only say I am meeting more and more people at seminars who never read aikiweb. They heard from friends.
Every healthy person has a group they talk with. Hobbyist even more so. So take an aikiweb readership of 50,000 and start calculating friends of friends of friends.
The numbers are not as important as the work. It is the people who actually do the work who are going to impact the arts in the long run. It is all but unavoidable. In time you won't function like normal people, you will have a bujutsu body and on contact people will know there is a difference to one degree or another. From there it's a matter of how much you guys want to help out others and your willingness to put up with the BS we've had to.
I just had a guy with 18 yrs grappling experience (under the Machado brothers) who more or less thought I was full of it...go at me in an open room. I proved my point quite well as I didn't use waza to stop him.,It was much the same for Takeda and Ueshiba wasn't it? In the fullness of time, do you think it will be any different for you guys?
It will change, it is already changing. And people are really happy and gratefull. These are good days for the arts, And contrary to all the BS and occasional wierdos who post on the net, we still have the internet (as the newer version of the age old "word of mouth" between budoka) to thank for it. .
Cheers
Dan

I think enough evidence exists to say it was never a consistent collected work of fixed waza in the first place. There was also some insider gossip about the creation of the scrolls that speak to the reasons behind a...uhm...rather fluid curriculum.

I put no stock in the notion of DR either being a fixed art or an old one, prior to Takeda. I suspect it was always him expressing a body method, and certain people recording how the various people responded (in different areas) to what happened when people attacked him. Hence, never repeating a waza.
Cheers
Dan

Thanks Dan.

I recall reading that Takeda charged per technique. When Takeda paid Ueshiba a visit in Ayabe he claimed to be after the money that was owed him for the techniques that Ueshiba taught his students.

Its from this information that I get my idea that Takeda at some point grabbed some students and devised a marketable technical syllabus.

But it could certainly be the case that he just demonstrated principals extemporaneously, and his students codified a syllabus out of that.

Hm, I think that describes Ueshiba's behavior pretty well. It may have been a factor (the major factor?) in his severing ties/"moving on" from Takeda. Why credit him if Takeda didn't even understand the full context?

On the other hand, it seems like it would have been fair to say Takeda showed/taught him aiki, since Ueshiba failed to learn it on his own. Thus there is a legitimate debt there.

Well, I agree that there is/was a legitimate debt there, no question. My point was that to some degree Takeda almost undoubtedly was well aware of the traditional antecedents of ki, kokyu, hara usage, and so on, since his internal-strength skills would have depended on them and there's no way he could not have been aware of them, to some degree. Considering that he spent a lot of time competing, talking, etc., with and among martial artists as he grew up, it's pretty much a certainty. The point being that Takeda would not and never did consider himself the inventor of Aiki skills.

Similarly, Ueshiba, because of the things he said and published, would not have considered Takeda to be the innovator of "Aiki" (I told you it was/is a fairly well-understood skill and has been for many generations). Hence, no matter that Ueshiba personally owed some sort of debt/fealty to Takeda, it would be nonsensical for Ueshiba to credit Takeda with "Aiki".

Liang Shouyu got me started on jin skills back in the early 1980's, but both he and I recognize the skills as just an element in training that has been around for thousands of years...... should I spend my time making posts, etc., about Liang Shouyu's 'discovery of jin'? Of course not.. that would be idiotic. If, a generation from now, a bunch of guys who recently became 'experts' in some jin skills start pointing their fingers at me for not recognizing Liang Shouyu as the true founder of Sigman-Do, I'll be sad.

Dan, I don't know what about what I said got you excited there. I was pretty ignorant before, and learned a lot over the last few years starting with reading your posts here, so I think you will see that much of what I really am saying is in agreement with you. What I actually said:

-Takeda was illiterate (and had to be told by his own student that it shouldbe read "Daito ryu"). I am absolutely convinced he was a smart guy. But being illiterate closes LOTS of doors. So all I said was it is a possibility that he didn't know the historical context of his teachings as well as Ueshiba did, upon learning from him.

-You'll like this: I actually was suggesting that even with book knowledge, Ueshiba didn't have any special skill until receiving teachings from Takeda. It's the same thing you just said! So please don't put words in my mouth, it is only creating argument where I have none against you.

Well, I agree that there is/was a legitimate debt there, no question. My point was that to some degree Takeda almost undoubtedly was well aware of the traditional antecedents of ki, kokyu, hara usage, and so on, since his internal-strength skills would have depended on them and there's no way he could not have been aware of them, to some degree. Considering that he spent a lot of time competing, talking, etc., with and among martial artists as he grew up, it's pretty much a certainty. The point being that Takeda would not and never did consider himself the inventor of Aiki skills.

I think this is progress.
No one ever said he was the inventor of aiki.
He never said he was either.
So where is there an argument? It was his use of it to infuse an entire art and refine it as a body method that was dramatically different in his era. And each of his five big dogs all state they continued to grow past his initial teaching. That's all.
That explains Mark's postion as well.

Quote:

Similarly, Ueshiba, because of the things he said and published, would not have considered Takeda to be the innovator of "Aiki" (I told you it was/is a fairly well-understood skill and has been for many generations). Hence, no matter that Ueshiba personally owed some sort of debt/fealty to Takeda, it would be nonsensical for Ueshiba to credit Takeda with "Aiki".

I think the distinction we argue over is
1. Takeda was thee source for Ueshiba to have first learned aiki.
2. Not that Takeda was THEE source of aiki.
No where have I said any different.
Dan

Dan, I don't know what about what I said got you excited there. I was pretty ignorant before, and learned a lot over the last few years starting with reading your posts here, so I think you will see that much of what I really am saying is in agreement with you. What I actually said:

-Takeda was illiterate (and had to be told by his own student that it should be read "Daito ryu"). I am absolutely convinced he was a smart guy. But being illiterate closes LOTS of doors. So all I said was it is a possibility that he didn't know the historical context of his teachings as well as Ueshiba did, upon learning from him.

-You'll like this: I actually was suggesting that even with book knowledge, Ueshiba didn't have any special skill until receiving teachings from Takeda. It's the same thing you just said! So please don't put words in my mouth, it is only creating argument where I have none against you.

Excited?
I agreed with everything you said excpet for a few points.
The "presumptions abound don't they"...was a general comment, not aimed at you personally...I should have qualified that. Sorry.

I was just at dinner in Hawaii with some old dogs who were talking about Koryu and the old days where we had to fight about DR being the source of Aikido...and someone said "Isn't it great we don't have to argue that anymore!!" I think I need an occasional reminder...oh well.
There are still some interesting rather nuanced points, and even more revealing (and very cool) surprises showing up from that source even today.
We good? .
Dan

It was his use of it to infuse an entire art and refine it as a body method that was dramatically different in his era.

OK, I don't have a quarrel with Takeda "infusing an entire art (and offshoot, if you count Ueshiba's "Aikido"), but my point was that the "body method" was not "dramatically different in his era". We know that what you're calling "ai ki" (Hua jin and variations) was available in China and, *from the few indicators that westerners have today* (Like the few books in English and now, increasingly, textual sources like the ones Ellis used in HIPS), was undoubtedly available to some degree in Japan in a few arts.

I was reading a monograph by Donn Draeger on Kiai and while I was listening to what he was saying about some of the Japanese watching invited Chinese perform (how did they know to invite the Chinese for these things if the Japanese weren't aware of them?), I noted the possibility that a number of the Japanese probably knew what was going on, but since Draeger hadn't been told all the secrets he thought he was unique in commenting on them. Same thing here..... just because there's not a lot of written documents available about what were secret techniques (like Takeda's "aiki"), it's not a good assumption that only Takeda had this information. On the contrary, even E.J. Harrison's acquaintance Nobuyuki Kunishige seemed pretty aware of a lot of the ki/kokyu skills and even "grounding" is a rudimentary usage of "aiki".

lol, That was actually pretty tame compared to some. He just comes off that way sometimes, old guys and the internet... fughetaboudit!

heh heh.. yeah I think I am just constantly on edge about the state of the discussion regarding these topics. Dan, thanks for the clarification.

Yeah it is kind of a weird time now, where I've come into this. The work has largely been already done regarding pointing out the truth of information flow in the genesis of aikido. (Thanks to folks like Stan Pranin.) So now this point in history is mainly just a point of curiosity, rather than an argument about truth and half-truths. I would be interested in further details as an enthusiast-- but like has been said, ultimately it doesn't affect much in terms of disputed history, or in terms of training.
I just can't help speculating on things, since it is so interesting. I loved Hidden in Plain Sight for this.

heh heh.. yeah I think I am just constantly on edge about the state of the discussion regarding these topics. Dan, thanks for the clarification.

Yeah it is kind of a weird time now, where I've come into this. The work has largely been already done regarding pointing out the truth of information flow in the genesis of aikido. (Thanks to folks like Stan Pranin.) So now this point in history is mainly just a point of curiosity, rather than an argument about truth and half-truths. I would be interested in further details as an enthusiast-- but like has been said, ultimately it doesn't affect much in terms of disputed history, or in terms of training.
I just can't help speculating on things, since it is so interesting. I loved Hidden in Plain Sight for this.

Yah people often point out that discussion is doing the work, but it IS interesting stuff. The Ayabe period that Dan hinted at in his reply to you especially. So continue to speculate out loud.

-Takeda was illiterate (and had to be told by his own student that it shouldbe read "Daito ryu"). I am absolutely convinced he was a smart guy. But being illiterate closes LOTS of doors. So all I said was it is a possibility that he didn't know the historical context of his teachings as well as Ueshiba did, upon learning from him.

Quote:
Jonathan Wong wrote:
-Takeda was illiterate (and had to be told by his own student that it shouldbe read "Daito ryu"). I am absolutely convinced he was a smart guy. But being illiterate closes LOTS of doors. So all I said was it is a possibility that he didn't know the historical context of his teachings as well as Ueshiba did, upon learning from him.

I'm not sure he was illiterate.

I've seen native Japanese argue over the meaning or pronunciation of certain Kanji. In the passage you sited I believe the conversation was more akin to it could be read either of two ways. I would have to look it up.
Illiterate your whole life, and you showed up with an ever increasing array of makimono. Where'd they come from?

I'm weird, when someone tells me they trained with so and so, at such and such a place, in the middle of their story I ask them, "Where were the bathrooms?"
Dan

I would be interested if anyone has sources/theories behind the illiteracy being just a rumor. That's pretty interesting. Is it a mistake in history, a slight against him, or was Takeda actually making people think he was illiterate on purpose?

I've also been thinking about the "Yamato" thing. I've seen English language sources claim that Yamato and Daito are alternate readings. But the famous "Yamato" as in the historical Japanese people is not 大東/"big east," it is 大和/"big Japanese," correct? (ie the one with "Daiwa" onyomi)

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

I'm weird, when someone tells me they trained with so and so, at such and such a place, in the middle of their story I ask them, "Where were the bathrooms?"
Dan

Reminds me of the Angel Island anti-immigration techniques. Went there on the tour with family. During the Chinese Exclusion Act times, they started to get too obsessive with this technique, asking "how many steps led up to the front door" and stuff like that! But the bathroom question makes sense. If you really spent any time there, that question surely took on particular significance to you at some point..

I would be interested if anyone has sources/theories behind the illiteracy being just a rumor. That's pretty interesting. Is it a mistake in history, a slight against him, or was Takeda actually making people think he was illiterate on purpose?

Sokaku had probably what is called dyslexic dysgraphia

Quote:

Q:I understand that Sokaku was not interested in studies as a boy and was illiterate.
A: Although it is said that Sokaku Sensei was totally illiterate, I understand that he actually could read. It seems that when he was a child he had a reason for declaring that he would never write. I have heard that whenever there was an election, he would practice writing the Chinese characters of the name of the person he was going to vote for and then go to the polls.

In dyslexic dysgraphia, spontaneously written text is illegible, especially when the text is complex. Oral spelling is poor, but drawing and copying of written text are relatively normal.
Finger-tapping speed (a measure of fine-motor speed) is normal.

Linguistic Dysgraphia
Otherwise known as dyslexic dysgraphia, the most common type of material-specific dyspraxia, Deuel and Rauchway describe this disorder as the inability of a child to verbally spell or write words correctly. Unlike individuals with dyslexia, individuals with linguistic dysgraphia read well and display good comprehension of what he or she reads. The handwriting of individuals with this disorder is often poor. While handwriting may be poor, the individual may show the ability to draw well.

Handedness doesn't appear to be a large factor in the acquisition of oral language, or reading skills. However, Handedness can impact writing skills (my understanding is that Takeda Sokaku was left handed) (handedness needn't be a big factor, but it can be come one under certain conditions) particularly in a society that didn't "allow" for left handers.

Try writing with your non-domiant hand (imagine doing this while learning HOW to write, spell, etc.), try doing the same with a fountain pen, now try it with a fude and sumi . . . what fun!

Now let's do it in a Confucian style learning environment. I don't know if his father tried to teach him writing, I kind of doubt it, but wouldn't THAT be interesting?

Tough enough with a Japanese Papa looking over your shoulder. Tough enough with a Samurai Japanese Papa looking over your shoulder. But to have a Samurai Japanese Papa looking over your shoulder who's idea of motivation is burning moxa on your finger nails . . . well that might JUST be enough to turn a person off of writing for life! No special disability required!! And you get to go through life not only without having learned how to write, but also with the knowledge that folks are whispering behind your back that you are illiterate (and all that label implies) and you get to carry around constant feelings of inadequacy and shame over being an embarrassment to your father and family.

Nice! One might be led to overcompensate in other areas and develop a bit of a "complex character."

I've also been thinking about the "Yamato" thing. I've seen English language sources claim that Yamato and Daito are alternate readings. But the famous "Yamato" as in the historical Japanese people is not 大東/"big east," it is 大和/"big Japanese," correct? (ie the one with "Daiwa" onyomi)

Hello Jonathan,

The original ancient name for Yamato was written as 倭. I gather that this was the name used by Chinese and Koreans to refer to Japan. Then under the Empress Genmei (707-715), the characters were changed to 大和. Or so my university students tell me. They are not aware of 大東 as a name for Yamato.

Handedness doesn't appear to be a large factor in the acquisition of oral language, or reading skills. However, Handedness can impact writing skills (my understanding is that Takeda Sokaku was left handed) (handedness needn't be a big factor, but it can be come one under certain conditions) particularly in a society that didn't "allow" for left handers.

But his left-handedness should have affected his martial arts training in weapons.

Quote:

But to have a Samurai Japanese Papa looking over your shoulder who's idea of motivation is burning moxa on your finger nails . . . well that might JUST be enough to turn a person off of writing for life! No special disability required!!

Sokichi burning his fingernails was, I believe, because Sokaku participating in sumo tournaments. Not motivation but punishment.

Quote:

When he was a boy, Sokaku used to participate in amateur Sumo tournaments held in little villages here and there. He would win the "gonin-nuki" or "junin-nuki" tournaments and walk away with all the prize money. Sokaku's father, Sokichi, was an established ozeki and rikishi of the Aizu Clan and even had live-in students. If a son of such a professional continued to sweep away the prizes at Sumo tournaments for amateurs at various villages, it would be compromising to his reputation as a professional ozeki. As a result, Sokaku was forbidden to attend these Sumo tournaments. On the days when there were festivals at villages, the father did not let Sokaku out of the house. He was kept in the dojo to practice bojutsu. Young Sokaku wanted to go to the festivals so badly that he was scolded for training half-heartedly. Sometimes he managed to escape and go to the festivals; then he would come home with all the prizes. In the end Sokaku's father got angry and burned a huge pile of moxa on both his thumbnails. His thumbs were severely burned, and it took two months for them to heal. I personally saw his cracked thumbnails, which Sokaku said were the result of his father burning moxa on them.

But his left-handedness should have affected his martial arts training in weapons.

I think you may be correct. At least I've read that he was equally very proficient with weapons in both hands and may, it seems, have passed knowledge of that advantage on to at least one of his students.

Quote:

Demetrio Cereijo wrote:

Sokichi burning his fingernails was, I believe, because Sokaku participating in sumo tournaments. Not motivation but punishment.]

When my father would beat me for doing something wrong (punishment) and when he would beat me because I wasn't doing something right (motivation) I failed to appreciate the subtle difference. To my childish mind it was all just pain.

If he was so left handed that he was unable to learn to write properly (right handed) he should have had similar problems learning to use weapons properly (right handed).

But if he was ambidextrous, he could have had learned to write with his right hand.

I don't think Sokaku's alleged illiteracy was caused by the attempts to correct his left handedness. I'm more into a disability...

Quote:

The Connection Between Dysgraphia and ADHD

Dysgraphia and ADHD may seem to be closely related, especially because most students with ADHD have other comorbid disabilities (or disabilities that exist along with ADHD). Dysgraphia is often among these comorbid disabilities. Researchers have wondered whether dysgraphia and ADHD are causally related, in that one causes the other, and if so, which causes which

A 2007 study at Bar Ilan University in Israel found that ADHD students were more likely than their peers to have difficult in writing, even if they had normal reading skills. They found that ADHD students were far more likely to omit, reverse, or add letters to words (mistakes known as graphemic buffer errors), exert abnormally high levels of pen pressure, and write quickly and inefficiently. They concluded that these errors were due less more to non-linguistic problems (although linguistic problems did play a part in some cases). So according to this study, dysgraphia and ADHD are somewhat causally related, in that ADHD can lead to a dysgraphia diagnosis due to the student's intensity and inability to slow down as easily as her peers.

On the fingernails burning... Who said it was for his resistance to learn to write?

Quote:

He (Sokaku) next talked about how quickly Marquis Tsugumichi Saigo learned techniques and having met and talked with General Nogi in Nasuno (in Tochigi Prefecture) and how much he liked it when the latter dressed up like a farmer. He also told me that since his martial art style was very easy to learn, he had never demonstrated in front of people. Takeda Sensei said that his father cauterized the nails of both his hands everyday as punishment for his not being able to learn techniques fast enough. He showed me the burn marks still remaining after so many years. Even when the hour reached two o'clock in the morning he continued to talk endlessly.